President 2016: The Clash of Dynasties

Assessing where Clinton & Bush stand after their big speeches

Dear Readers: We made a couple of much-needed improvements to our Crystal Ball website over the past week that we wanted to make sure you knew about. The first, which you’ll see at the top of online posts, are buttons to easily share Crystal Ball stories on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. The second, located at the bottom of posts, is a print button. We also added this button to the bottom of our ratings pages, so you can easily print out our presidential, Senate, House, and gubernatorial ratings. Thanks to Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report and John Ekdahl of Ace of Spades HQ for suggesting the addition of these features.

In the aftermath of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s (R) announcement speech on Monday, Maggie Haberman of the New York Timestweeted that “Several Dem strategists confess to pangs of concern watching Jeb speech right now.” Ed O’Keefe of the Washington Post replied to Haberman, saying that he was hearing the same thing.

These are just the latest examples of the press citing Hilary Clinton aides or unaffiliated Democrats saying the campaign most fears facing Jeb Bush. Maybe it’s true. But pardon our skepticism. We suspect the Clinton camp would welcome Bush as the GOP nominee, and whispered worries to the contrary could very well just be orchestrated noise. Bush would bring the elimination of dynasty as an issue and no generational contrast. Moreover, the Clinton team already knows exactly how they’ll use the Bush 41 and 43 baggage as campaign projectiles.

Likewise, the best Democrat to wield the dynasty attack on Bush probably is not a Clinton.

Clinton, the former secretary of state and first lady, remains in the driver’s seat to win her party’s nomination, although two recent polls show Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) moving to within hailing distance of her in New Hampshire even as she retains a mighty lead in Iowa and nationally. Bush, meanwhile, is among the favorites in the crowded Republican field, though he is not the favorite — our most recent ratings of the GOP field, which are below, have Bush tied at the top with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI). But given that both Bush and Clinton made big speeches over the past several days, it’s natural to look ahead and ponder the possibility of a rematch of the two families that contested the 1992 presidential election.

Clinton’s speech Saturday felt something like the “relaunch” many described it as, although at the time of her official entry into the presidential race in April, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said that a “formal kickoff event” would come later, which is what the speech on New York City’s Roosevelt Island was.

The former secretary of state does not have a reputation as a soaring speaker, and she did nothing to change that Saturday. It was in many respects a laundry list speech, reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s State of the Union addresses, which were often interminably long and filled with small-bore proposals that the press rolled its eyes at but that seemed to go over well with the general public.

Included in the speech was automatic voter registration, universal preschool, paid family leave, a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and other proposals designed to appeal to rank-and-file Democrats. It was a cavalcade of liberal policy goals that illustrated she’s not taking her eye off step No. 1 this time, the way she did in 2007 by underestimating Barack Obama. She has to win the nomination first, and part of the speech could be summarized as “Take that, Bernie Sanders…and Elizabeth Warren.” Skeptical Republicans might say she was providing “stuff” — as Mitt Romney put it back in 2012 in his criticism of the Democrats — to the various constituencies that make up the modern Democratic Party.

One obvious bit of Clinton pandering was a proposal to amend the Constitution to undo the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which Democrats revile as the cause of the infusion of big-money Super PACs onto the political scene. Such an amendment would be politically impossible — two-thirds of the House and Senate would need to approve the amendment, and then three-fourths of the states. Get real. (Some of the Republican candidates are trying the same phony gambit with same-sex marriage as the Supreme Court decides whether to make it universally legal.)

Bush, in his Monday announcement, did his share of pandering. One ambitious goal Bush laid out was the desire to achieve 4% economic growth, which he said would be accompanied by 19 million new jobs. This goal immediately raised the eyebrows of economists, many of whom deemed sustained growth at that rate as unlikely, if not impossible. While Bush didn’t explicitly state how long he would expect the economy grow at such a rate, history suggests it would be hard to achieve for two whole terms in the White House. Based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the last time an eight-year period averaged at least 4% growth was from 1983 through 1990 (4.1%), after the early struggles of the Ronald Reagan years passed and the economy continued to perform well early into George H.W. Bush’s presidency. But otherwise, one has to go back to 1973 for another eight-year period with average annual growth at that rate. And that was the end of an era where from 1965 (1958 through 1965) to 1973 (1966 through 1973) every eight-year period had at least a 4% average. More recently, Bill Clinton came very close to pulling off what may indeed be Bush’s goal: Clinton’s presidency featured an average annual growth rate of 3.9%. Somehow, we guess Hillary Clinton, not Jeb Bush, will be boasting about that one.

Lofty goals qualify as bold, but a garden-variety campaign pledge can become a political boomerang. Look at Obama: Part of his 2008 appeal was a pledge to bring the parties together, an impossible task in this polarized era that he has spectacularly (with the GOP’s determined help) failed to achieve.

One fascinating aspect of Bush’s announcement was his adoption of his father and brother’s approach. Bush 41 promised a “kinder, gentler” administration, while Bush 43 doubled down with “compassionate conservatism.” Now, the potential Bush 45 has promised to show people what is “in my heart.”

But slogans and approaches cannot obscure historical records. Hillary Clinton’s response will be something along these lines: “Twice the American people were promised compassion, and what they got was war and recession. Why would we take the bait a third time? It’s still the economy, stupid!”

No presidential candidate is tabula rasa, a blank slate. They all come carrying baggage. Hillary has plenty of it, some Bill’s and some all her own. But no one needs as big a baggage cart as Jeb Bush, who will lug the weight of a dozen Bush White House years around on the campaign trail, plus the controversies from his eight years in Tallahassee.

Given that Bush, like Clinton, is not a naturally gifted speaker, we found his performance Monday to be strong. Even though he’s effectively been in the race since December, it’s easy to imagine that the coverage of Bush’s speech and official announcement will help him get a small bump in the polls.

Both Bush and Clinton want to distance themselves from two men apiece: For Bush, it’s 41 and 43. In his announcement speech, Jeb Bush said that no one deserves to win the White House “by right of resume, party, seniority, family, or family narrative. It’s nobody’s turn.”

For Clinton, it’s 42 and 44. In an interview with the Des Moines Register earlier this week, Hillary was asked about whether she was running for a third Bill Clinton or Barack Obama term. “I’m running for my first term. I will have my own proposals,” she said.

There’s a grain of truth to both claims, but they are denying the larger reality. Bush is where he is because his brother and father were POTUS; he’s far more Bush than Jeb. And Clinton is there because of Bill and Barack. She is indeed a continuation of both presidencies.

Big breaks from the past by these two candidates just aren’t possible because the public isn’t going to find them credible.

Hillary’s task is not easy, because as we’ve seen many times, Bill can say and do things that require major cleanup. Moreover, any new scandal involving Bill reminds voters of the long history of ethical problems that has dogged both Clintons. And she has to live with President Obama’s successes and failures — those already catalogued and those occurring right through Election Day.

What’s the saving grace for Clinton? First, even a lame duck president such as Obama can maneuver in substantive ways to help her. Second, Clinton has less defending to do with her husband’s record than Bush must do for his brother’s two terms.

In retrospect, President Clinton is remembered more for a golden economy than for the sex scandal. It sure didn’t look this way as America said farewell to Bill Clinton in January 2001, yet public perceptions shift over time.

Bush’s challenge is much greater. He carries the burden of his brother’s more recent and very controversial presidency. Voters don’t need to see George W. on the campaign trail to remember Iraq, Katrina, and economic disaster. The previous Bush presidency wasn’t that long ago.

Both Bush 41 and 43 have a legacy of economic struggle, and that reinforces Jeb’s dilemma and gives Hillary a big opening.

So what does Jeb do? Beyond asserting independence (“I’m my own man”) he has to draw as many distinctions with his brother as possible. Still, most people know Jeb owes his position to his family name, and Jeb basically endorsed everything George did at the time.

Jeb has to hope his enormous war chest and establishment backing propels him to the nomination, and then maybe voters in the fall of 2016 will want change badly enough that they’ll pick the Republican ticket, whatever their doubts about installing yet another Bush.

In that sense, an election between a Bush and a Clinton might turn out to be more about the current occupant of the White House than either of the dynasties.

A word on Trump

Table 1 shows our updated 2016 Republican presidential rankings (our Democratic rankings are unchanged). In an effort to prune a list that feels like it is ever-expanding, we have removed hawkish Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who hasn’t made much noise about actually running lately and whose potential role in the field as a foil to dovish Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is now being filled by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

In his place amongst the “Gadflies and Golden Oldies” goes businessman Donald Trump, who announced for president on Tuesday in a rambling speech.

The key thing to note about Trump is that he is deeply unpopular both nationally and with Republicans. Quinnipiac University recently found him with a weak 34% favorable/52% unfavorable rating nationally among Republicans. A Monmouth University poll released earlier this week was even worse: 20% favorable and 55% unfavorable. That -35 point favorability gap was far worse than any other Republican, dwarfing that of even Graham and Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), who are also unpopular with Republicans. Few give those two much chance of winning the nomination, and Trump’s odds are as bad and probably worse.

Team Trump argues that with such a big field, Trump has enough niche support that he can get some traction in the early states and grow from there. It’s not impossible that Trump will make some noise, and he is such an over-sized (some would say outrageous) personality that he’s guaranteed to generate coverage, perhaps at the expense of other GOP candidates. This may be true particularly in the coming dog days of a summer campaign, when Trump’s rhetorical bomb-throwing will fill column inches and airtime. While unpopular, Trump is well-known, and that name ID could keep him in the top 10 of national polling by the time of the first Republican debate in Cleveland on Aug. 6 — a ticket to the stage and a huge TV audience. (Trump is now at about 4% in the RealClearPolitics polling average, and no. 9 overall in the GOP field.)

However, it should not shock anyone if Trump’s dalliance with the 2016 campaign turns out to be brief. The billionaire could be long gone from the race by the time the first votes are cast in Iowa and New Hampshire, if his efforts are not bearing fruit and he wants to preserve The Apprentice. Trump has a well-earned reputation as a national novelty act that he will have to overcome if he wants to be taken seriously by both the press and the voters.